It seems to me there is a school of thought that goes something like this: Train fast, and you increase mitochondrial numbers in your fast-twitch fibers, so they are able to burn more energy and you do get faster…until the glycogen is burnt…then you’re toast.
Train slowly, and your mitochondria numbers increase in the slow-twitch fibers, as well as making the gluconeogenesis systems more active, allowing you to better access long-term energy stores and burn the fuel…so you conserve your glycogen somewhat by decreasing it’s burn rate…so you can go longer distances faster.
And, sense a 5K run is roughly the same pace as your VO2 max, and, by virture of the length of time it takes to do a very good 5K run, the slowtwitch system must be working efficiently, then long distance slowtwitch system training is important to a fast 5K run.
OK, I can follow that. It sounds plausible, although there are people that say all you are trying to do is raise your LT, and you don’t have to do it at slow workrates. But, what I don’t follow is why people say you can’t train both systems at the same time. Other than cortisol release that can be found after very strenuous workouts, why else would the body not be able to handle both stimuli?
Specifically, for those of you that adhere to this way of training, why wouldn’t it be a good idea to burn a lot of the available muscle glycogen with the fast-twitch system early in the workout, then finish by doing the bulk of the workout at low intensity? Wouldn’t this force the slowtwitch energy system to be even more gluconeogenic? And as long as you are going slow enough after the hard section, wouldn’t you still be able to continue to exercise for as long as usual by utilizing the slowtwitch muscle fibers?
I won’t comment on the bulk of your email, I don’t belong to any of those two “one-sided training” schools you mention. I just wanted to say that I sometimes schedule training sessions like you mention last, with a hard, steady-state effort at the beggining, followed by a less intense, longer. But it’s not my idea, I got it from Daniels and makes some sense. I also use something like this in swim training, but this time I got the idea from Olbrecht.
Excellent question Yaqui. I’d be curious what the coaches and physio guys out there say too. For me, it goes a step further. Approaching 50 years of age, I’m torn between operating (for Ultra distance races) off an aerobic threshold pace, and training it accordingly, with high volume long steady state efforts, raising my efficiency etc. VS. doing enough quality to stem the inevitable slowdown with age. Friel for one advocates a masters athlete do more quality and less endurance work as the former system is in fact the one that does drop off with age. They also highly recommend more strength training as you age, since muscle mass declines as well. I’ve got a 30 year base of doing this stuff since the 70’s. While I know I need long rides and long runs for IM, should I exclude quality ala Gordo Byrn’s theory of racing up to and at the AeT levels? I guess I feel I don’t need more practice going slower!
here is my take on it. If I’m going to run a track workout and still want to get 10-12 miles in I’m running about 15min warm up doing my track work and taking the long way home from the track. I train my VO2 and LT on the track and log about 6 miles afterwards at an easy aerobic pace. If I do it the other way around, run 6-7 before the track I can’t seem to run as fast for my repeats. My 1km times might be 3:30-:34 vs 3:22-:24.
For my IM I’ll probably skip the VO2 work on the track and do more threshold and just below threshold type stuff.
I’m not sure about the physiology, but it has something to do with lactates. I only know that you can’t train both at the same time EFFECTIVELY. One interferes with the other.
So don’t f-up a good LSD run by sprinting at the end.
Read Daniels Running Formula, he’s got great stuff on how to balance training.
Cuz wrote: So don’t f-up a good LSD run by sprinting at the end.
I’ve often heard that. Don’t know if there is validity behind it, but, for me, there is injury prevention by not doing this. When I’m tired and trying to go too hard is when I get muscle strains.
But, I’m talking about the opposite…warming up enough to begin to go fast early in the workout, until you’ve burned much of the easily available glycogen in the muscle. THEN, do the long, slow stuff for the remainder of the workout. Just a thought…
My feeling, though, is that if you can get a quality low intensity workout in immediately after a high intensity workout, your high intensity workout wasn’t hard enough. Like I said, the science is beyond me, and this is only my opinion, based solely on my experience. YMMV.
I am curious to know why sprinting at the end of a LSD would ruin the workout, thoough.
Vitus, I THINK that, for a triathlete, if your high intensity is so high that you have trouble doing a low intensity workout, then, your high intensity was, indeed, too high. I don’t think we have much need for sprints.
I don’t think many coaches advocate going harder than just over your best 1 hour effort. But, for arguement, let’s say you need to go just a bit harder than your best 30 minute effort. It’s usually suggested to do these efforts in intervals lasting at least 8 minutes, often 20 minutes. I really doubt doing an effort slightly above your best 30 minute effort a few times for 8-20 minutes would so wipe out a decently trained triathlete that they couldn’t ride very easy for a couple of hours afterward. The question is, would this be smart from a training standpoint?
I’m just thinking out loud here…wondering if the Oracle, or Ashburn, et. al., might show up with a few ideas about it.
What I’m curious about is pre-depleting glycogen reserves before the LSD-type training session. If you do LSD-type training long enough and at decent enough effort, you will eventually deplete the muscular glycogen reserves…then you are dependent upon gluconeogenesis. That seems to be a good strategy to train this energy producing system, so why not speed up the glycogen depletion at the beginning of the workout with higher intensity?
I think it (sprinting a the end of a long workout) is an increased risk of injury or soreness without a corresponding benefit. You are too tired to really get a good intensity workout but still able to hurt yourself. Kind of like training in that grey zone. I can’t have a workout to accomplish all things.
Umm, yeah there is. Most of my morning runs are done in the grey zone. Pretty much surrounds the San Francisco Bay in the summer time… Does make the run nice and cool, though.
Vitus, I THINK that, for a triathlete, if your high intensity is so high that you have trouble doing a low intensity workout, then, your high intensity was, indeed, too high.
I don’t think many coaches advocate going harder than just over your best 1 hour effort. But, for arguement, let’s say you need to go just a bit harder than your best 30 minute effort. It’s usually suggested to do these efforts in intervals lasting at least 8 minutes, often 20 minutes. If you’re talking about training for IM distance, those efforts might be appropriate. I think they’re too slow for short course. ( Or rather, I think that some training at faster a faster pace is beneficial for short course training.)
**I really doubt doing an effort slightly above your best 30 minute effort a few times for 8-20 minutes would so wipe out a decently trained triathlete that they couldn’t ride very easy for a couple of hours afterward. The question is, would this be smart from a training standpoint? **The question is, if you have a certain distance set aside for a workout, why aren’t you running as fast as you can for that distance? In other words, let’s say you plan on running 6x800 on 2:00 recovery. Why are you running those 800s at your 10K pace, or 5K pace, or whatever? Why aren’t you running them as fast as you can maintain for the 6 repeats?
"But, I’m talking about the opposite…warming up enough to begin to go fast early in the workout, until you’ve burned much of the easily available glycogen in the muscle. THEN, do the long, slow stuff for the remainder of the workout. Just a thought… "
And a good one. It’s a way to simulate a longer day than you actually put in. Do 20 minutes at near (10K) race pace or 3-5X1000 - 1 mile, then do your LSD. It’s a brutal day, because you basically start your long run on empty. It feels a little like mile 18 on the marathon.
Vitus, your questions simply aren’t the same as mine. You’re asking why I’m not going faster when I train “fast”. I’m asking about the possible training adaptation efficacy of burning up glycogen early in a exercise session before turning to a slow pace.
I tend to train at higher effort levels than commonly espoused, but, that’s because I simply don’t have the time to do the classic LSD’s. But, as far as training at maximum speed, i.e., sprinting, not many coaches advocate that for a training effect…unless you are a sprinter. Too much risk for too little reward. As a triathlete, you are rarely going to be spending less than 50 minutes at as high an effort level as you can manage for that period of time…there just isn’t much of a need for the adaptations you get from sprinting…if you define sprinting as something significantly above your VO2 max. Does this mean I never sprint? No…I might sprint every once in a while when kidding around with someone, but, I don’t do it for training adaptation reasons.
Cuz wrote: It’s a way to simulate a longer day than you actually put in. Do 20 minutes at near (10K) race pace or 3-5X1000 - 1 mile, then do your LSD. It’s a brutal day, because you basically start your long run on empty. It feels a little like mile 18 on the marathon.
This is precisely what I’m asking about. It seems to me to be a valid training adaptation strategy. Burn up the easily available glycogen, and train the gluconeogenesis system without having to stay out there all day.
Just wondering what the thinkers in the sport have to say about it…
**Vitus, your questions simply aren’t the same as mine **You’re right. Sorry about the hijack.
**sprinting, not many coaches advocate that for a training effect…unless you are a sprinter. Too much risk for too little reward. **I don’t think I’m talking about *sprinting, *really- I can’t sprint for six repeats of a half mile. But I do think they should be done as fast as possible. More intensity=more adaptation.
Vitus, I know you’re not hijacking, everyone’s viewpoint comes from within and is colored by whatever they are thinking at the moment, I realize it probably isn’t usually intentional. Even if it was intentional…who cares? Not me. No foul committed!
I completely agree that something like a 6X800 should be done at the highest sustainable speed throughout the set in order to get the most out of the set. And, I wouldn’t be surprised if that set would cause many to yak if done at a very fast pace! Brutal!
This is precisely what I’m asking about. It seems to me to be a valid training adaptation strategy. Burn up the easily available glycogen, and train the gluconeogenesis system without having to stay out there all day.
Just wondering what the thinkers in the sport have to say about it…
Why not just train on the Atkins diet?
Sounds like a recipe for bonking to me and/or the classic ‘tweener’ workout… Not intense enough for VO2max/lactate threshold development, not long enough to develop the muscular stamina/endurance elicited by proper ‘basebuilding’.
My opinion… Hard days and long/easy days each elicit their own adaptations. Combining and/or modifying either limits their effectiveness. If training time is limited, focus on training for shorter races.
"What I’m curious about is pre-depleting glycogen reserves before the LSD-type training session. If you do LSD-type training long enough and at decent enough effort, you will eventually deplete the muscular glycogen reserves…then you are dependent upon gluconeogenesis. "
It is my belief that gluconeogenesis can only produce enough glycogen for the brain. The brain can only use glycogen, while muscle cells can use a variety of energy sources. So if you exhaust your intramuscular glycogen supply, you simply won’t provide enough energy via immediate gluconeogenesis for quality exercise. Your brain will shut the body down to protect it’s only energy supply.
I think coaches try to maximize the effort it takes to properly train each enery system with seperate workouts. Maximize time, effort, and practice the physical and mental skills to go fast and hard or long and slow. I think it is too hard and not as productive to try and do both in one workout.
JC wrote: Not intense enough for VO2max/lactate threshold development, not long enough to develop the muscular stamina/endurance elicited by proper ‘basebuilding’.
Thanks for playing!
Well, if you DO your intense VO2max/lactate threshold development set first, you’ve done it. THEN, if the LSD stuff really does have value, do the LSD work afterward…of course, you won’t be able to go quite as fast, because you’re depending upon your gluconeogenesis capability…as well as whatever amounts you can injest and utilize…but, isn’t that what Irondistance training is about? Training those systems…the gluconeogenesis and fuel ingestion systems, along with increasing the slowtwitch mitochondria?
Just asking…not preaching nor advocating that this is tried and true…